ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted on opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
S.W. by P.W. v. B.K.
71A03-1012-PO-655
Protective order. Reverses trial court’s denial of S.W.’s motion to correct error, remands for a hearing on civil contempt petition, and orders S.W. to be reimbursed $250 appellate filing fee. Held that Indiana code states filing fees will not be assessed for a proceeding seeking relief from or enforcement of a civil protective order.

Paternity of A.S.; B.S. v. E.M.
82A01-1006-JP-291
Juvenile paternity. Affirms trial court’s award of primary custody to mother and remands to trial court for determination of how and when the father may make-up lost parenting time.

Wastewater One, et al. v. Floyd County Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.

22A04-1007-PL-418
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment affirming the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of the applicant’s conditional use of application for expansion of a sewage treatment plant.

Harold E. York v. State of Indiana
27A02-1008-CR-956
Criminal. Dismisses Harold York’s interlocutory appeal previously granted by the Court of Appeals, in anticipation of the defendant claiming the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charge of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, a Class D felony. In its decision to dismiss, the appeals court held that the state did not allege York had failed to register under the lifetime requirement, but that he violated the Registration Act by failing to include his fiancee’s house as his residence.  

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.K.; C.W. v. IDCS (NFP)
42A04-1010-JT-699
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Christian D. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation and decision to allow hearsay testimony.
 
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT